Cults & Society
Department: Group Report

Hare Krishna: women

9/12

[continued]

There is another aspect of the protection issue that raises a slightly different philosophical basis for a duty on ISKCON’s part.  That issue is domestic violence.  In his presentation at the "Vaishnavis in ISKCON" conference, His Holiness Bir Krishna Swami mentioned a letter he had seen in which a male member of ISKCON expressed his understanding that our Vaishnava etiquette permitted him to beat his wife as long as he used only a leather belt on her back or a sapling on her legs.  Some male members in Southern California have expressed the belief that Shrila Prabhupada stated that both a wife and a mridanga required beating. I have personally not seen any proof that Shrila Prabhupada endorsed wife beating.  Moreover, ISKCON’s Governing Body Commission has specifically rejected the claim that our philosophy justifies spousal abuse in any way. 

Given this institutional force, which misguided members are using to promote domestic violence, ISKCON has a duty to create policies which will counter domestic violence.  While the ISKCON Women’s Ministry has undertaken to create some policies and substantive programmes to meet this need, we often hear excuses for institutional inaction on this issue.  The excuses we hear, lack of resources and an inability to interfere between husband and wife, are clearly insufficient.  Given our somewhat chequered history, which includes (at the very least) the public perception that we have a poor record on domestic violence, we have a duty to find the resources to counter this destructive influence.  Moreover, having given numerous, repeated public instructions on the duty of the wife to tolerate any of her husband’s abuses and having given men some (false, but well promoted) basis on which to justify their abuses, it seems a little late to make the claim that we cannot become involved in the marital relationship.  If we make the claim that we protect women, then we must become responsible and actually protect them. 

I want to return now to the issue of participation rights because there is a clear link between participation rights and substantive rights.  The best way to ensure that people have substantive rights is to give them participation rights.[xxvi]  So, the claim that we can safely relinquish our participation rights in exchange for protection is simply untrue.  Even with the best of intentions, our leaders will be unable to safeguard our substantive rights if we have too few participation rights.  I am deeply suspicious of anyone who tells us that we do not need participation rights.  Experience shows that we do need such rights.[xxvii] 

There are two reasons why ISKCON needs to pay particular attention to this link between participation rights and substantive rights.  The first is that we have a limited ability to enforce any substantive rights we create.  We have no functioning justice system in our movement.  Although we have a Justice Minister and have developed some grievance policies, our Justice Ministry has no staff and no financial resources.  Hence, our grievance policies are routinely ignored.  It would be unreasonable to assume that substantive policies protecting women can be enforced effectively in this environment. 

Cults & Society
Department: Group Report

Hare Krishna: women

9/12

[continued]

There is another aspect of the protection issue that raises a slightly different philosophical basis for a duty on ISKCON’s part.  That issue is domestic violence.  In his presentation at the "Vaishnavis in ISKCON" conference, His Holiness Bir Krishna Swami mentioned a letter he had seen in which a male member of ISKCON expressed his understanding that our Vaishnava etiquette permitted him to beat his wife as long as he used only a leather belt on her back or a sapling on her legs.  Some male members in Southern California have expressed the belief that Shrila Prabhupada stated that both a wife and a mridanga required beating. I have personally not seen any proof that Shrila Prabhupada endorsed wife beating.  Moreover, ISKCON’s Governing Body Commission has specifically rejected the claim that our philosophy justifies spousal abuse in any way. 

Given this institutional force, which misguided members are using to promote domestic violence, ISKCON has a duty to create policies which will counter domestic violence.  While the ISKCON Women’s Ministry has undertaken to create some policies and substantive programmes to meet this need, we often hear excuses for institutional inaction on this issue.  The excuses we hear, lack of resources and an inability to interfere between husband and wife, are clearly insufficient.  Given our somewhat chequered history, which includes (at the very least) the public perception that we have a poor record on domestic violence, we have a duty to find the resources to counter this destructive influence.  Moreover, having given numerous, repeated public instructions on the duty of the wife to tolerate any of her husband’s abuses and having given men some (false, but well promoted) basis on which to justify their abuses, it seems a little late to make the claim that we cannot become involved in the marital relationship.  If we make the claim that we protect women, then we must become responsible and actually protect them. 

I want to return now to the issue of participation rights because there is a clear link between participation rights and substantive rights.  The best way to ensure that people have substantive rights is to give them participation rights.[xxvi]  So, the claim that we can safely relinquish our participation rights in exchange for protection is simply untrue.  Even with the best of intentions, our leaders will be unable to safeguard our substantive rights if we have too few participation rights.  I am deeply suspicious of anyone who tells us that we do not need participation rights.  Experience shows that we do need such rights.[xxvii] 

There are two reasons why ISKCON needs to pay particular attention to this link between participation rights and substantive rights.  The first is that we have a limited ability to enforce any substantive rights we create.  We have no functioning justice system in our movement.  Although we have a Justice Minister and have developed some grievance policies, our Justice Ministry has no staff and no financial resources.  Hence, our grievance policies are routinely ignored.  It would be unreasonable to assume that substantive policies protecting women can be enforced effectively in this environment. 

Cults & Society
Department: Group Report

Hare Krishna: women

9/12

[continued]

There is another aspect of the protection issue that raises a slightly different philosophical basis for a duty on ISKCON’s part.  That issue is domestic violence.  In his presentation at the "Vaishnavis in ISKCON" conference, His Holiness Bir Krishna Swami mentioned a letter he had seen in which a male member of ISKCON expressed his understanding that our Vaishnava etiquette permitted him to beat his wife as long as he used only a leather belt on her back or a sapling on her legs.  Some male members in Southern California have expressed the belief that Shrila Prabhupada stated that both a wife and a mridanga required beating. I have personally not seen any proof that Shrila Prabhupada endorsed wife beating.  Moreover, ISKCON’s Governing Body Commission has specifically rejected the claim that our philosophy justifies spousal abuse in any way. 

Given this institutional force, which misguided members are using to promote domestic violence, ISKCON has a duty to create policies which will counter domestic violence.  While the ISKCON Women’s Ministry has undertaken to create some policies and substantive programmes to meet this need, we often hear excuses for institutional inaction on this issue.  The excuses we hear, lack of resources and an inability to interfere between husband and wife, are clearly insufficient.  Given our somewhat chequered history, which includes (at the very least) the public perception that we have a poor record on domestic violence, we have a duty to find the resources to counter this destructive influence.  Moreover, having given numerous, repeated public instructions on the duty of the wife to tolerate any of her husband’s abuses and having given men some (false, but well promoted) basis on which to justify their abuses, it seems a little late to make the claim that we cannot become involved in the marital relationship.  If we make the claim that we protect women, then we must become responsible and actually protect them. 

I want to return now to the issue of participation rights because there is a clear link between participation rights and substantive rights.  The best way to ensure that people have substantive rights is to give them participation rights.[xxvi]  So, the claim that we can safely relinquish our participation rights in exchange for protection is simply untrue.  Even with the best of intentions, our leaders will be unable to safeguard our substantive rights if we have too few participation rights.  I am deeply suspicious of anyone who tells us that we do not need participation rights.  Experience shows that we do need such rights.[xxvii] 

There are two reasons why ISKCON needs to pay particular attention to this link between participation rights and substantive rights.  The first is that we have a limited ability to enforce any substantive rights we create.  We have no functioning justice system in our movement.  Although we have a Justice Minister and have developed some grievance policies, our Justice Ministry has no staff and no financial resources.  Hence, our grievance policies are routinely ignored.  It would be unreasonable to assume that substantive policies protecting women can be enforced effectively in this environment.